November 2007

First thing…the jc in my email is NOT for the jewish carpenter nor anything affiliated w/ this hocus pocus thing called “religion.”

I have a question to be answered and a conversation starting comment…

Did cavemen believe in a god or higher whatever?

My food for thought comment is if there was a god or some higher power, wouldn’t religion or a presence of god be embedded in our heads and not require teachings or books as well as lacking differentiation and separation? For example, if my friends and family didn’t tell me about this character, then I wouldn’t know about it…so going further, would I be penalized or denied entry to heaven if said figure exists?

Simply put: If god existed, the notion would be an instinct like finding food or shelter; like boom you know. It shouldn’t be ambiguous.

God is an imaginary friend for grown-ups!

If a deity existed, would it have given all people knowledge of its existence? I have heard some Christians argue that everyone has a chance to find Jesus in their heart, even if they do not directly learn about Christianity, so at least some religious people would agree with you.

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that it relies on assumptions about a creator god’s motivations and actions. At best, I think you could make a moral argument — that a god that will punish soul eternally if they do not believe in him would be morally required to give people the opportunity to believe in him. But if we had inherent knowledge that god existed, everyone (pretty much) would believe he existed, so belief wouldn’t be much of a test for whether an eternity without punishment is deserved.

If we’re talking about all this in a Judeo-Christian context, you also have the issue of the fall. The idea is that God had a direct relationship with Adam and Eve, but they turned their back on Him by disobeying his commands and were removed from the garden. From this, it could be concluded that God wanted people to have definite knowledge of his existence but that we don’t have it because we rejected it.

I’m not saying that this all necessarily holds together philosophically, but I am saying that your argument is not necessarily obviously correct.